An article from The Atlantic Cities notes the results of a survey into what piece of technology people could least live without: TV, cellphone, computer or car. The results differ quite a lot by age:
Yet another sign that young people just aren’t into driving anymore?
28 comments
Leave a Reply
Processing...
Not the easiest graph to read as the colours of the key code are wrong. Its a bit of a gamble to say young people are not into driving anymore when car ownership for us is far more expensive then for the other age groups (higher insurance premiums, loan costs,low incomes/study).
Later age groups will either have young children or find that public transport is not an easy to use option with noise, congestion, injuries etc.
Not sure if aren’t into driving, or aren’t into commuter driving. To totally different things.
It shows the mentality of the different age groups and gives us an insight to why some of our politicians cant get their heads around public transport. Auckland is never going to attract talent without being urbanised, and PT is a huge part of urbanism. Its a shame as we are getting left further and further behind the rest of the world.
The survey concerns living without a car, not living without driving. I agree this probably transaltes mainly to living without commuter driving.. quite likely many of those who selected “car” may well also rent cars on holiday etc, use taxis and have the use of a shared car formally (zip car, city car hop etc).
Sorry meant to say ..or informally. I reckon the 18-34s of today share cars around more than the 18-34s of 20 years ago. Just a guess.
Yeah I think the survey was done by Zipcar actually.
Two of the bands are for people in a ten year age range, but the bottom range spans seventeen years. I can’t think why you would do this unless you wanted to lump in a group of car non-owners (students etc) with a group of car-owners (young parents) so that the figures for one distorted the entire range and made it look more significant. I hate “research” or polls where I feel manipulated.
I’m in the 45-54 range and the item I would least like to lose is my computer. I use it both to keep in touch with the world and to earn a living. Does this send any sort of message about my attitudes to driving? No. And its all artificial because there is no reason for me to give up any of the items listed.
Agree with you about the first age range – it seems a bit odd. Most people wouldn’t pick it up because that age range is usually marketed as ‘young’ (e.g. Contiki’s 18-35 range). There is also the open-ended last age range.
But I disagree with the artificiality. it’s not asking you to give any up, it’s asking which would impact you the most negatively if you couldn’t use it. I’ve just moved into a house where there is little parking, so I am parking a few streets away. I certainly don’t mind not parking right at my door, but it has driven home the point that the car sits unused most of the time, so I am considering getting rid of it. I knew parking was an issue before I moved in, yet it wasn’t a huge factor in my decision. However, if there was no internet (to me this equates with losing the use of my computer, since I basically only use it for accessing the internet), the house would have been ruled out straight away. The poll is just indicating the different priorities of a sample of people from each age group.
“There is also the open-ended last age range.”
Which is also quite strange. It includes a group of people who are mostly working along with retired people, and I feel the answers for each group would be significantly different and shouldn’t be lumped together. Retired people likely spend more time at home and feel less need for mobile phones. I know my dad only got one when he went in to hospital and wanted to keep in touch with people… These days it is pointless calling him on it unless you’ve told him to take it with him, like if you’re meeting him in town and I tell him I’ll call if I’m delayed. However, I know that both my parents are starting to see their eyesight deteriorate and are not looking forward to the time when they won’t be able to drive. They do have a regular bus that stops right outside their house and takes them directly to the local shops and supermarket, but they won’t enjoy carrying groceries home and visiting friends will be difficult because of the need to figure out what buses to take for any particular journey.
But at the end of the day, this survey is designed to promote a company that sells short term car rentals or something. That’s about as valid as a deodorant company producing research that “proves” we’re all worried about armpit smell.
This is where you can have an impact; speak to your Local Board and speak to the Auckland Transport Board about your observations, and in particular, emphasise that the PT systems need to work for an 80 year old as well as for an 8 year old. If it can do that, then everyone inbetween will benefit.
Totally agree that it’s not the best survey, and of course it will be biased towards an outcome preferred by the company doing the survey, but I didn’t have a problem with that particular question itself (although up the retirees end I think ‘phone’ would be more appropriate than ‘mobile phone’). Unlike a survey I read about recently that said the majority of NZers don’t support adoption by gay couples, where the actual question was something like “Do you think adoption by families where there is both a mum and a dad should be prioritised?”. At least in the survey shown above it’s not too much of a leading question.
The lower band is as it is as this survey is targetting the “Millennials” the current hot marketing buzz term for young people.
Anyway, yes it was a ZipCar commissioned survey, 3rd one in as many years, online (only) survey, sample size 1015 respondents, 980 were drivers. so 35 were not.
No break down of drivers/non drivers by age band either, which would be useful to see who has/hasn’t got licenses.
Full slide show of 12 slides of survey results, including above is at this link: http://www.slideshare.net/Zipcar_Inc/millennial-slide-share-final-16812323
(previous two years surveys available here as well)
Survey as I see it is pretty much along the lines of aiming at “proving” that Millennials don’t want or need to own cars as they instead know they can rent them from ZipCar.
But whether its mixing its questions and interpretation of the answers properly is very unclear.
e.g. what does “losing” a piece of technology (negatively impacting you) mean in a car/phone/tv/computer context – does that mean say having your car stolen, it breaking down, or simply not wanting or needing to own a car – but still being able to get access to one via say ZipCar – or does it mean “no car/taxi or access to one, for you, anytime, ever”? Same for Phone, TV and Computer.
Would they answer the same if they knew that no car also meant no ZipCar/Uber or whatever too?
I’ve “lost” all 4 of these technologies over the years through various mishaps and all were “negative impacts”.
My Galaxy S3 firmware shit itself 1 month ago, and I was without a smartphone for 10 days while it was repaired by Samsung, that was painful and I wouldn’t want to repeat that experience soon.
My previous car was rammed up the arse and was written off a few years ago and I was car less for a week or so and that was painful too (sore neck too due to whiplash), so I’m not wanting to repeat either exercise anytime soon – but I own a car still none the less – but might not replace this one if the same thing happens.
I’ve been burgled a few times over the years and the TV’s have been stolen each time, so no TV for a while there too until insurance (or the landlord in one case) coughed up for a new one – again not wanting a repeat anytime soon. And yep my home computer has needed a rebuild more than once, so been without that too for a period of time – although I could have used my work laptop. Being without internet (as I’ve had to, thanks to Orcon – more than once) is more painful than no computer – but is “no computer” being seen as “no internet” and/or “no job” or just no old style Windows PC clunker in the corner?
For smartphone carrying people, the phone is the TV, phone, computer, Internet, and Car access device, so its surprising that that losing that isn’t given a super high “negative” rating by the Millennials age group. And maybe that answer there tells us something about how this survey question was interpreted by the respondents?
And note – many of the answers in the full survey pertain to “licensed drivers” only, which adds a 3.5% “error margin” to the answers, as 35 non drivers / 1015 respondents = ~3.5%
And thats on top of whatever margin of error the survey already had, and as it was an online survey so who knows hwo representative the sample is.
To be sure, the lower age group definitely have a larger wish expressed and stated followed through of any of the groups to use more PT and use other options (like simply driving less).
But I suspect that the car answer is showing that these people *know* there are alternatives to car ownership rather than simply showing that they willingly can and do use cars a lot less.
And as they shop online, use Zipcar and have online friends that they don’t actually need face to face meeting time with and use PT to get around – and for all we know these responents all live in funky happening places like NYC or SFO where ZipCaris located so don’t live miles out of town and so don’t need a car for anything much.
They’re also more likely (but not by that much) to buy online rather than drive a store to purchase, again, since its an online survey, then ipso facto – every respondent (to famously misquote Mandy Rice-Davies from the Profumo affair): “well they would say that wouldn’t they”
And one reason these same people are just as likely to not need drive to see their (online) mates – the mates probably live all around the country (US) or even world, so its not feasible to drive to see them.
All up: interesting but doesn’t really answer the underlying questions overly well about driving and car ownership patterns of the up and coming Millennials age group..
I think there’s probably some truth in these results, although there’s many other factors at play. It may be, for example, simply that the usefulness of a car increases as people get older; hence the differences between generations are not due to the having different preferences per se, but simply because they are different ages.
It would be more useful if they had asked the same question over several years, because then you could see how responses within a particular age group varied over time, rather than simply the differences between age groups at one point in time.
“It may be, for example, simply that the usefulness of a car increases as people get older; hence the differences between generations are not due to the having different preferences per se, but simply because they are different ages.”
Obvious conclusion: The older you get, the harder it is to walk places, the more you drive.
But Obi other stats show the complete reverse; people drive less as they get older, especially if they drove to or for work then retire. But if you mean as you get older you become more car dependent, that may be true. Until of course your children steal your keys when it becomes clear you are a risk to yourself and others behind the wheel! [my increasingly blind mother].
Another personal example: Over the last few years I have made a conscious and very successful effort to drive less [by cycling, using Transit, or reconsidering that journey], but there is one area that has not changed; taking my 85 year old mother out. Still, I guess I could do this with a zipcar or similar, and may get to that point if the numbers support it…?
Additional aside, my reduction in driving has meant that the economics of updating my not so economical car with a more efficient one has been seriously affected by my reduction in kilometres driven. That is to say the higher capex on a new car can not be justified unless I go back to driving more because the savings at the pump will now be proportionally lower! Even truer with really efficient examples say like the Volt, which i doubt I would hardly ever need to gas up but then to cover the extremely high capex of 85k I would have to be driving like moonlighting travelling salesman to ever approach a pay off. Doesn’t stack up. Bit of a Catch 22.
“But if you mean as you get older you become more car dependent, that may be true.”
That’s not really what I was saying, although I suspect the statement is true. My point is that when you’re 20 (or 30 or 40) then walking a kilometer to the shops and then walking home with some shopping bags isn’t a problem. But most people get to an age where they will find that too hard work and will opt to drive. I’m not talking about number of journeys or the length of journeys where I agree that youngish folk travel more than older folk. I’m really just saying that walking places is harder as you get older. So is cycling, and the consequences of falling off your bike are a lot more serious for the elderly.
I make sure that I take at least one trip with my father driving whenever I visit. He is a confident safe driver, although he has decided on his own to give up driving at night. I rely on him monitoring my mother, who I think isn’t far away from being taken off the road for good. She scraped the car against the garage door surrounds while reversing out a few weeks ago, and I think she’s starting to question her judgement.
There’s a bit of that but we also know from vehicle Kms travelled stats that the Baby Boomer generation (generally those born 1946-1964) are the ‘driving-est’ generation ever. They (we!) drove more than their parents and are still driving more than their children. So without discounting stage of life, there is also generational culture to consider too.
It is interesting to note that this generation has had control of all the big transport investment decisions for quite a long time too. It is this generations world that we largely inhabit now, they have formed it to suit their values and priorities.
I think Steven Joyce may actually a little outside the definition above, is a bit younger, but every word he says is directly consistent with the classic Boomer world view. He is Daddy telling everyone else what they want and what’s good for them with total unflinching certainty. Any suggestion of other possible points of view are dismissed with self satisfied and patronising disdain.
I think that the Baby Boomer generation is not the right group of people to focus attention on. They will be all retired within the decade and huge numbers of them have already become avid Super-Gold Card users. Unless National really pull away from the pack between now and next election, chances are Super-Gold card is here to stay. To summarise – although the influence of Baby Boomers has been great, it id declining. While many are still rattling around in large family homes purchased many eyars ago for a song, many have or will relocate to smaller and possibly terraced homes over the next few years. This group if anything should become friends of intensification and public transport over time.
The group of interest to me is Generation X. I am going to define Gen X as those born between 1961 and 1981. There is some variation on definition but these are the dates that ring true for me. And I’m going to describe in words the group of people who now fill the senior management positions, including Key’s cabinet, and in general lead those water cooler conversations at the office. In New Zealand, It is this group who “came of age” as Apple computers, Windows operating system, Rogernomics, a more interesting mix of bars and night clubs, and Cafe culture was first pioneered in the big cities. This group at an impressionable age saw demise of staid and socialist Muldoonism. They followed the enthusiasm of the 1980s sharemarket boom. They may have lost a few dollars in the subsequent crash, but did not have the commitments for it to hurt too much. Those who followed economics (those most likely to be the current “management class”) bought into the Rogernomics dream. A good number of this group had their OEs in London at the time of Thatcher. PT in London at the time was awful thanks to years of cutbacks including Thatcher’s measures. But, for the kiwis in London at the time, the “noise” generated by the Thatcher reforms was simply background wallpaper to their adventures, often including the classic VW combi-van road trip through Europe. This group re-established themselves in New Zealand, along with similar age colleagues who had in many cases been promoted up through the gaps created by NZ’s economic structural reforms of the 1980s and 90s.
They were out of the picture as they were buying, doing up and selling their first homes and establishing young families through the late 90s and early 2000s. However, this group in many cases are now the epitome of the contemporary “mainstream” New Zealand family. Big home in the ‘burbs, lots of after school activities and Saturday sport. Possibly a summer batch, boat etc. Focus on time efficiency means that car served suburban shopping centres are king. Not currently affected by redundancies. No real interest in the city apart from an occasional visit for special events (Rugby World Cup opening). This group of successful Gen X-ers are the current movers and shakers…..and it is this group who have been very successfully sold the John Key dream.
Generation X are going to wield the reigns of power for many years to come. Looking at the above statistics – cars matter a lot to this group. While cars may feel more important to the Baby-boomers, Generation X will be using their cars to a far greater extent. I consider Joyce and Key to be reflecting Gen X world views. It is Gen X who need to be won over in sufficient numbers to create a more effective, efficient, sustainable urban environment including better investment in PT and cycling lanes.
It would be interesting to see some age demographics around political party voting preferences to see if my claims on Generation X being the current conservative minded movers and shakers follow through into votes.
It follows that the age group that are the biggest car users will be the greatest enthusiasts for National’s roading plans (ie Gen X). The more I think about it, those roading plans are increasingly irrelevant to the interests of the Baby Boomers over the next decade even though according to the survey above, having a car available is considered of highest priority. Please excuse lack of spell checking in my previous post above.
indeed – example of some of the reasons here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/02/beeching-wrong-about-britains-railways.
Thanks for that Dave. A must read, and in many was sums up what this blog tries to say over and over again. And no, not what some superficial readers conclude, that we just think trains are best; but rather this point:
This is the perfect description of our current government’s position, and is all the more extraordinary that it is the same ‘single, inflexible vision’ as Beeching’s from 1963 despite all that has been learned since. Here’s the full sentence:
We are not anti-road or driving but very strongly against the idea that it is either efficient, clever, or wise to aggressively pour very nearly 100% of our capital investment into one mode.
Joyce is the Beeching of our time, and will be judged as such by future generations:
Tuktuk, baby boomers are only just starting to reach ‘retirement age’ now.
And on your definition of Gen X as being born between 1961 and 1981, they are unlikely to have been economic players in the 1987 stock market crash.
If Baby Boomers are defined as born 1940 to 1961, then the oldest of them are 73 – thats 13 years after retirement if they retired at 60, or 7 years if they retired at 65. By my reckoning, half of them will be retired at this point in 2013.
A Gen X-er born in 1961 would have been aged 26 at the time of the 1987 sharemarket crash. Ample time to study for a degree, and a have a few years of professional life tucked away. Plenty of time for a flutter on the sharemarket, but not old enough to have the commitments of a family. And therefore at that time – they lacked any real understanding of the value of money won or lost.
I can personally vouch for the fact that there were plenty doing this – I believe the now forgotten term for them was “yuppie”. According to that great oracle – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuppie . Socially liberal but fiscally conservative – this group was really at the vanguard of Gen-X. Take a look at the leaders of our country today – they fit that generation, as do many others now sitting at the executive tables of corporate board-rooms.
Most Boomer definitions are 1946-64, here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boom. I much prefer yours as it means I’m no longer a member of the greediest generation that ever lived! Although I did have child support and free university education, although I seriously doubt there’ll be an un-means-tested pension by the time iI get there.
But anyway it there is always overlap and they are only useful in a broadbrush sense. And you’re right that many are now older and of course are driving less but that doesn’t mean that they’ve changed their attitude about what’s best, hence the results to that survey above. People quite often aren’t that rational about these things. And it’s still their world we live in. But yes x-ers like Joyce are doubling down on what they built.
Haha – since you’ve broken cover on age, I’d better comment that I was one of those X-ers dabbling in the share-market fresh out of university! I do think that those of us who “came of age” in New Zealand in the mid 1980s were very aware of the huge social and economic changes going on and this has affected our world views to this day. On the global scene, the Thatcher and Reagan years culminated in the end of the Soviet empire.
It is a fun though risky thing to try to define demographic groups. The second decade of X-ers coming of age in the 1990s saw fundamentally trends to the first. The Rio Earth Summit of 1992, trends toward a much wider range of global back-packing destinations and the whole outdoors adventuring revolution will have given a very different perspective. Not to mention a move away from bands like Devo, Simple Minds, The Smiths……. toward Red Hot Chilly Peppers, Green Day, Smashing Pumpkins…..
Coming back to transport, it gives some comfort to consider Joyce, Key, Brownlee and Co as a temporary idealogical burp due to things they witnessed at an impressionable age!
Tuktuk,
Be careful you don’t (as a Gen-X’er) fall in to the same trap as the Boomers such as Joyce and Brownlee have done and assume that your world view is right and so “its your way or the highway” for all.
Yes, your time will come/is coming – then it will go – as Gen-Y, then Millennials after then come up behind you and shake the tree you’re living in.
Tuktuk, I very much doubt there were “plenty” of 7-27 year olds in the sharemarket, though I accept you may move in different circles. Most NZers did not and do not even attend university.
As a 19 years old going on 20 guy, I am very reluctant to drive despite having my car license, most of my friends haven’t even picked u the road code. In my opinion, driving is boring and it uses up a lot of time. I’d rather be engaged with my iPad or even do study/work on my laptop on a train, which is FAR more productive than driving. Also, when I did Geography on my last school year, every one of my classmates wishes that there is a better integrated bus/train service around New Zealand, because they don’t like relying on cars and having to fill it up with petrol every week, particularly those who live 60km away from my old school.